 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Owens v. Farmers Insurance Exchange3/22/1999
for a leave under the FMLA. She said she would be away "maybe 8 weeks, maybe 12." Owens told DePinto that she had seen a doctor and would send a doctor's note right away. According to Owens, she mailed a note at that time to Farmers from her psychiatrist, stating that Owens was in treatment and needed a medical leave from work. Farmers claims to have never received that note.
That same morning, on September 14, Ruther was arranging to terminate Owens' employment. In faxed correspondence to the human resources department, Ruther explained that Owens had not timely called in to report her absence either that day, Wednesday, or the previous day, Tuesday, as required under company policy. By 10:30 a.m., Ruther obtained final approval for terminating Owens. He notified Owens by mail. Upon receiving the letter, Owens called Ruther and Human Resources Supervisor Robert Evoy. She expressed surprise over having been fired because she thought that she was on an approved leave and that a continuing call-in to Farmers was not required. Neither Ruther nor Evoy inquired about her medical condition. Evoy responded that Ruther's letter explained why Owens was fired. "I have nothing to say to you", Evoy told her.
Owens' condition deteriorated and her treatment continued for several days. Then, on September 27, Owens wrote to Evoy asking for an explanation. She later wrote to Ruther asserting that she had never intended to resign. Owens' letter said she merely requested a leave of absence and had taken his "Do what you have to do" response to her September 12 telephone call as an approval of her leave request. Owens' letter also related that she had mailed a letter from her doctor to Human Resources on September 14. Rebecca Seeley, Evoy's successor as the Human Resources Manager, responded in a letter dated October 7, 1994, that she found "no record" of Owens being on an approved leave of absence. And Seeley wrote that Farmers still had not received a "doctor's statement." The letter explained the termination would stand because Owens had not called in about her absence, but added that Farmers would reevaluate Owens' termination if she had "any documentation" in support of her request, other than her letters. On October 31, Farmers wrote a follow up letter to Owens saying that because she had failed to respond to the October 7 letter, Farmers would consider the matter of her employment closed if Farmers did not hear from her by November 7.
Owens claims she did not receive the October 7 letter from Farmers and did not become aware of its contents until she saw it as an attachment to the October 31 letter. Owens retained an attorney, Pamela McClaran. On November 3, McClaran contacted the Human Resources Department. Laura Wampler, a supervisor there, told McClaran that Farmers policy required Owens to submit written documentation in support of a medical leave of absence within five days of her oral request for a leave. McClaran argued with Wampler, trying to establish that Farmers terminated Owens only two days after her oral request and that in any event, the FMLA does not impose a five-day limit for the receipt of written documentation or require that a medical leave request be in writing. McClaran was unable to resolve these issues with Wampler. According to McClaran, Wampler did not deny that Farmers received a note from Owens' doctor. McClaran asked Farmers to have its own attorney contact her about Owens' termination. Farmers did not do so, even after McClaran repeated her request in a letter.
Owens submitted no further documentation to Farmers about her medical treatment. Farmers let the termination stand. Owens filed a wrongful termination suit against Farmers in December, 1995. Amon
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Washington Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|